Favorite Sci-Fi (if you must, Fantasy as well) Universes?

[DisturbedPervert]

Since you included fantasy, A Song of Ice and Fire, easily.

[BVN]

Another vote for Dune and maybe also Star Wars for nostalgic reasons

[Viking]

Star Trek - Good universe which develops over time. But has the real liability of having every alien race represent a simple idea. You can pretty much define each race within one sentence, though there are some exceptions. 6/10

Dune - Starts out well with a balanced dynamic between apparently self interested groups. Has a solid background for each of the parties. It boils down to ever more complicated and intricate plots by more and more potent plots against a more and more powerful atreides good guy. Has alot of potential that isn't exploited. 7/10

Star Wars - Not really well constructed. The whole thing seems to happen in a small (very small) aristocratic class with a clear good/evil dynamic. Can't really see it as real. It has interesting characters and races (wookies et.al.) though.  3/10

Babylon 5 - Fantastic Universe with realistic behaviour. Manages to deal with most of the logical problems with space universes. Limits itself to only two time travels. Exploitation of it's potential only limited by bad storytelling and network executives. The Universe is the biggest reason I love the show. 9/10

Stargåte - Good universe. Most importantly the Universe helps the story. Within it's fantastical assumptions it works. Works for the story, but not very interesting. 6/10

Firefly - Good universe with lots of potential. I'm really sorry this one got cancelled.  When I think about all the leaps and jumps in Serenity that need good filling up I really want this to have been done "right". 7/10

Farscape - Good universe with a great background story. Everybody seems to be some degree of evil and good. 8/10

Westeros - Fabulous. Nobody is Evil, not even Cercei, Nobody is Good, not even Jon Snow. 10/10

Asimov's Foundation - Good universe, and has the bonus of being completely at the service of the story and it's message. 7/10

Wheel of Time world - Good universe, but has the problem of invincible men of prophecy and almost invincible soldiers. Jordan falls into the trap of fitting the story for the universe rather than the other way round. 6/10

[Alatriste]

I have to think about it longer, but provisionally

Fantasy - The Lord of the Rings. I don't think I need to explain why.

SF - Asimov's Foundations (and Megatraveller, which is close to being Asimov's Galactic Empire with aliens)

[Jos Theelen]

Jack Vance, especially the Demon Princes.

[Eddie Teach]

Jordan falls into the trap of fitting the story for the universe rather than the other way round. 6/10

It's been a while since I've read any of those books, so won't comment on that. But I don't see the virtue of "fitting the universe around the story." Readers don't like it when a book with a realistic setting does unrealistic things to further the plot. Likewise, fantastic settings should have a set of rules and some consistency.

[Caliga]

Put me down for Asimov's Foundation as well.

[Josquius]

Frontier Elite- One of the few instances of a somewhat realisitic sci-fi universe I've seen.

[Octavian]

Stargate. The USAF with a fleet of intergalactic warships is awesome.

Ageed!

[Viking]

Jordan falls into the trap of fitting the story for the universe rather than the other way round. 6/10

It's been a while since I've read any of those books, so won't comment on that. But I don't see the virtue of "fitting the universe around the story." Readers don't like it when a book with a realistic setting does unrealistic things to further the plot. Likewise, fantastic settings should have a set of rules and some consistency.

I see the "virtue" being that the purpose of the universe (and all the characters) is to tell the story. I think the reason Jordan never finished the series is that he fell in love with the Universe and focused on it. In a sense he was more interested in placing some action in all parts of the map to give himself a reason to detail the culture and nature of each of those parts rather than progressing the story. I just believe that the setting should help further the story, not the other way round.

[Darth Wagtaros]

Jordan falls into the trap of fitting the story for the universe rather than the other way round. 6/10

It's been a while since I've read any of those books, so won't comment on that. But I don't see the virtue of "fitting the universe around the story." Readers don't like it when a book with a realistic setting does unrealistic things to further the plot. Likewise, fantastic settings should have a set of rules and some consistency.

I see the "virtue" being that the purpose of the universe (and all the characters) is to tell the story. I think the reason Jordan never finished the series is that he fell in love with the Universe and focused on it. In a sense he was more interested in placing some action in all parts of the map to give himself a reason to detail the culture and nature of each of those parts rather than progressing the story. I just believe that the setting should help further the story, not the other way round.

I think Anhk-Morpork successfully esttablished itself as both an incredibly detailed setting on its on right as well as a platform for plots.

[Eddie Teach]

I see the "virtue" being that the purpose of the universe (and all the characters) is to tell the story. I think the reason Jordan never finished the series is that he fell in love with the Universe and focused on it. In a sense he was more interested in placing some action in all parts of the map to give himself a reason to detail the culture and nature of each of those parts rather than progressing the story. I just believe that the setting should help further the story, not the other way round.

It's one thing to say the author should focus on the plot rather than the setting, it's another to say the setting should be designed around the plot. If the plot is so unrealistic that it requires a contrived setting, it's probably not worth writing.

[grumbler]

Viking, I would agree with your evaluations above, but note that Firefly wasn't supposed to be a coherent, logical universe like most of the others you name.  It was a setting, not a "universe" per se, and had few fast and firm rules.  Thus, if the story needed to have cattle being moved by starship like they had historical been moved by train, you could do it even if it made no sense in any larger context.

It was a fun show and a fun setting, but there was no "there" there.  I certainly don't feel deprived by the lack of any further stories in that 'verse.

A universesto add for consideration:
H.B. Piper's Terro-Human Future History.  Built around the idea that history repeats itself, the series has fun for both history and SF fans.

[Viking]

I see the "virtue" being that the purpose of the universe (and all the characters) is to tell the story. I think the reason Jordan never finished the series is that he fell in love with the Universe and focused on it. In a sense he was more interested in placing some action in all parts of the map to give himself a reason to detail the culture and nature of each of those parts rather than progressing the story. I just believe that the setting should help further the story, not the other way round.

It's one thing to say the author should focus on the plot rather than the setting, it's another to say the setting should be designed around the plot. If the plot is so unrealistic that it requires a contrived setting, it's probably not worth writing.

so you basically consider all of sci-fi and fantasy "not worth writing" ? or have I misunderstood you?

[Neil]

There are only 3 Star Wars movies.

And the last one of those was borderline.

ewoks =

Quit being such a faggot.